In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court ruled that a request for compassionate appointment can be denied if the deceased government employee’s family has sufficient financial resources. Justice Prateek Jalan emphasized that such appointments are an exception to regular recruitment and are only meant to relieve families from financial distress after the sudden demise of a government servant.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Yashvardhan, sought compassionate appointment in the National Bal Bhawan (NBB), where his late father served as a Junior Sports Instructor (Judo) for 27 years. His father passed away on 21st May 2021 due to severe COVID-related complications. His mother submitted a representation on 20th July 2021 for the petitioner’s appointment under the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment.
In the submitted form, only the petitioner and his mother were listed as dependents. The form did not include the petitioner’s elder brother. The assets listed were ₹49.64 lakhs, which included gratuity, provident fund, and leave encashment. Additionally, the family was receiving a monthly pension of ₹36,416.
A subsequent detailed representation was filed in 2023, followed by legal proceedings that resulted in the rejection of the compassionate appointment request on 8th August 2024. The decision cited that the family’s financial condition did not meet the Scheme's criteria.
The petitioner relied on the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines issued on 16th January 2013, which state:
“The object of the Scheme is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a Government servant dying in harness... to relieve the family... from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.”
The petitioner also claimed that his elder brother had returned from the U.S. and was now unemployed, indicating the family had three dependents relying on the same financial resources.
The respondents countered that the petitioner's brother was living and working independently in the U.S., which was also acknowledged in the writ petition. Therefore, he was not shown as a dependent in the official form. They argued that the family had received nearly ₹50 lakhs and monthly pension income exceeding ₹40,000, thus not qualifying as financially distressed.
Justice Prateek Jalan noted:
“The fact that an amount of approximately ₹50 lakhs is available to the family by way of corpus, in addition to monthly income of over ₹40,000/-, is not factually disputed.”
The Court further examined Clause 18(c) of the DoPT Scheme:
“An application for compassionate appointment should not be rejected merely on the ground that the family... has received benefits... [but] a balanced and objective assessment... must be made considering all assets, liabilities, and relevant factors.”
The Court rejected the argument that the benefits received by the family should not have been considered. It clarified that while benefits alone are not a ground for rejection, they must form part of the overall financial assessment.
On the issue of alleged discrimination—based on RTI data that five employees had been appointed on compassionate grounds—the Court found no pleading or evidence showing those cases were similar to the petitioner’s situation.
The High Court concluded:
“A scheme for compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rules... It arises only in a limited class of circumstances... and in strict conformity with the stipulated conditions.”
Finding no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the respondent’s decision, the Court dismissed the petition.
Case Name : Yashvardhan v. Union of India & Anr.
Case No. : W.P.(C) 2372/2025
Counsel for the Petitioner : Rohit Samhotra, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondents : S. Rajappa, R. Gowrishankar, G. Dhivyasri, Advocates
